Should Ched Evans be allowed to play football again?

ON THE website campaigning for his rape conviction to be overturned, the first photograph of Ched Evans shows him atop a Welsh mountain.

Hartlepool United have rejected the chance to sign convicted rapist Ched Evans

He is finishing his climb. He has a stout, rough stave in his right hand. He looks clean-cut and healthy.

Meanwhile, in the real, off-line world, he remains a pariah. He wants to resume his football career. But even Hartlepool United, rock bottom of the Football League, are not that desperate.

Manager Ronnie Moore did say he'd quite like to sign Evans, claiming: "He's served his time and the boy wants to play football."

But after a horrified reaction from Hartlepool supporters and the local MP, the club denied they'd ever really considered letting "the boy" score the goals they need.

League One Sheffield United, his former club, accepted last month that public opprobrium made re-employing him impossible.

Convicted persons are permitted by law to use the internet to make "serious representations" about their innocence.

But, because Evans's lawyers have submitted an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, those of us who can see flaws in the arguments on the website are discouraged from discussing them.

But the biggest contradiction in the Evans case, to my mind, is this: there can be no doubt at all that he should be allowed to play professional football again - yet I would not want him to play for the club I care about.

In fact Evans did play for my club, Norwich City, on loan from Manchester City seven seasons ago, and contributed 10 goals towards Championship survival. At the end of that season he made his Wales debut, scoring the winning goal with a cheeky back-heel, against Iceland. The following season he moved to Sheffield United.

And in May 2011 he had a night out in Rhyl with Clayton McDonald, a friend from their days in the Manchester City youth team.

No club is bound to take him and, as the good people of Hartlepool have demonstrated, supporters can have their say

Both men were to stand trial for raping a 19-year-old woman that night. One issue was whether she was too drunk to have consented to having sex with them, one after the other, in the local Premier Inn. McDonald, who had taken her to the hotel, was cleared.

Evans, who arrived while his mate was having sex, was convicted and sentenced to five years. He was released on licence last month, after serving 31 months in a category C prison (one rung up from an open prison).

That's about as much as I can am allowed to tell you, save that his own account, which is detailed on his website, is a tale of grimly sordid behaviour.

Yet he should be allowed to play football. Those who have railed against the idea do so "because footballers are role models." Leaving aside the thought that anyone who holds footballers as exemplars is failing horribly as a parent, let's think this through.

There are some crimes which do debar people from some professions. Paedophiles can't work with children, for instance. But other than in a few, quite specific bans like that, which are designed to prevent further offending, we want criminals to earn honest livings after prison, and to pay their taxes.

And so we have footballers who have committed acts of serious violence. Two current professionals killed people by driving dangerously. If we bar Evans, are we saying sex crimes are so special that they alone should lead to a lifetime ban from the game?

And on what do we base that demarcation? And why only footballers? What about professionals in other sports? Or rock stars? Or Actors?

What about sportswomen? It is impossible to frame any sensible, fair, logical rule which would prevent Evans from returning to his career – and many of those who rage against the notion seem motivated by simple envy about how much footballers earn.

However, it is one thing to say that he should be allowed back and another entirely to say he must play again.

No club is bound to take him and, as the good people of Hartlepool have demonstrated, supporters can have their say.

The people of this country despise someone who behaves as Ched Evans did that night in Rhyl. And isn't that the best and most cheering "role model" lesson about this?

Owen Oyston, majority owner of Blackpool FC, was convicted of rape in 1996

THERE is one convicted rapist in professional football: Owen Oyston served three and a half years of a six year sentence for the rape and indecent assault of a 16-year-old girl. He owns Blackpool FC.

In their only season in the Premier League, one unnamed director was paid £11 million by the club: more than any non-footballer has been paid by any club in the land.

The money went to a company owned by 80-year-old Oyston and his wife Vicki, both of whom have had spells as "chair" of Blackpool, a position currently occupied by their son, Karl - who says the money was paid to ease the club's tax bill.

It's a pity they didn't spend it on the away fans' stand, which has a leaking roof.

They've got a porous defence, too, and are bottom of the Championship. But Karl doesn't tolerate complaints.

In an angry exchange of text messages, he is said to have called one fan "a retard" and referred to his "special needs". So far, Karl has not denied the accusation.

The FA must investigate and, if there is a case to answer, must charge him with using discriminatory language. Meanwhile, Karl should stand down from the board of the Football League until the case is dealt with.

But there are no rules to stop Owen from parading in the directors' area on match-days. Supporters, despairing of the decline and decay, say it is appropriate that he wears a cowboy hat.